kritika savremene umetnosti

[boshoku]

teoriju teorije umetnosti koja se bavi umetnošću i teorijom, u formatu foruma :P , nisam baš zdušno opredmećen isčitavati s pažnjom stalno

 

maj bed

[Caligula]

Ma zezamo se ovde malo, niko se oruzja jos nije latio.

 

Ne znam zasto bi se ovaj topik shvatao ozbiljnije od drugih.

[eumeswil]

 

 

POJMOVNIK, M. Šuvaković

 

Konceptualna umetnost je

autorefleksivni, analitički, kritički i proteorijski pokret zasnovan na istraživanju prirode, koncepta i sveta umetnosti. Zadatak konceptualnih umetnika nije stvaranje umetničkih dela, već istraživanje, analiza i rasprava uslova nastajanja umetničkog dela i lingvističkih ili semioloških jezika kulture i funkionisanja umetnosti u svetovima kulture, tržišta i ideologije. Umetnička dela koja nastaju u konceptualnoj umetnosti su koncepti i teorijski objekti a njihov

smisao je:

 1.unošenje poremećaja u tradicionalne i uobičajene modernističke konvencije stvaranja, prezentovanja, recepcije i potrošnje umetnosti

i

2.zasnivanje teorijskog istraživanja u domenima umetničkog rada iz kojih je teorija bila isključena

 

 

 

Oba bolda nonsens uz lepu retoriku.

 

Prvi bold - zar se istraživanja, analize i rasprave ne rade najbolje u formi koja je mnogo manje limitarujuća, pisanoj reči ili govoru? Da imaju šta smisleno da kažu tako bi i uradili. Tu se i otkriva ništavilo i pseudo-intelektualizam takvih dela. Šta tačno analiziraju "dela" poput Marininog i šta to imaju da kažu što ne može biti urađeno na pomenute načine? 

 

Drugi bold - opravdavanje nestajanje kriterijuma uz "velike" reči.

 

 

Ne znam kakvom jezičkom gimnastikom može da se opravda da konzerve i govna zaslužuju pažnju, a kamoli dostizanje absurdnih cena takvih "umetničkih dela".

 

 

Iskreno me zanima šta ljudi misle o dugačkoj i detaljnoj kritici koji sam linkovao ranije u temi, vidim da niko nije komentarisao. Ili su ovakve stvari opšte poznate? Za "car je go" publiku poput Calligule, pretpostavljam da jesu i imaju isti/sličan stav.

 

Izvod:

 

As each art deteriorates and degenerates due to the gradual abandonment of laboriously invented and refined conventions (which, contrary to popular belief, do not restrict an art but on the contrary create, refine, and help it flourish — the reason bunglers find conventions "restrictive" is because they lack the training and discipline required to adhere to them and the talent and creativity to add to (i.e. further complexify) and/or modify them), we find in every field the same movement: a regression to previous, in many cases even primitive critical standards. Moreover, at the same time as standards collapse the number of aspiring artists increases (indeed, as we have seen, it is this very increase that leads to the collapse, the two movements unfolding simultaneously once the masses have been "emancipated" and the means of artistic creation become widely available), whilst the resulting artworks come to increasingly resemble a repulsive junk- and rubbish-soup that no one in their right mind would want to have anything to do with. "In this sense, therefore," says Baudrillard, in his essay "Transaesthetics",

 

"inasmuch as we have access to neither the beautiful nor the ugly, and are incapable of judging, we are condemned to indifference."

 

But Baudrillard's love of hyperbole and his aversion to rigorously structured writing (for he thought quite rigorously — he just did not write that way) cause him to commit an error here — in fact two of them. Because our problem is not, as he says, that we "lack access" to the beautiful and the ugly (for the works of the masters obviously haven't gone anywhere: we still "have access" to them) — our problem is solely with the new stuff that's being made, all of which has at last become so abysmally ugly that no one can any longer be bothered to sit down with a microscope and try to figure out which repulsive aesthetic monstrosity is less repulsive than the others. Therefore, we are not "condemned to indifference" because we are "incapable" of judging — we are condemned to indifference because we can't be bothered to judge, because we quite simply do not want to.

 

This, however, should not be taken to mean that we no longer care about art — only about what passes for modern art. It goes without saying that we still care about classical art, whether that be the statues of antiquity, the frescoes of the Renaissance, the plays of the seventeenth century or the symphonies of the eighteenth. And, at the same time, we care about the popular art which contemporary "artists" and "critics" (i.e. pseudo-artists and pseudo-critics) see as beneath them: we care about photography, the cinema and comic books, as well as the works of modern illustrators (who are the true, if inferior, descendants of the painters...), and all genres of genuinely nuanced contemporary music. Some of us even care about stuff like resin statues of movie or comic book heroes, which — say of them what you will — are a great deal closer to the sculptures of antiquity than the randomly slapped-together garbage that desperately tries to pass itself off today as "plastic art". In short, any form of contemporary popular art, inasmuch as it gives pleasure to anyone, to anyone at all, stands on an immeasurably higher level than "modern art" — which gives pleasure to no one, not even, as we shall soon be seeing, to those who pretend to enjoy it.

 

This double movement, then, which consists partly in rediscovering antique art, and partly in embracing contemporary popular artforms, is how healthy people react to the phenomenon of "modern art" (i.e. to the complete and utter dissolution of artistic convention in every sphere and the reduction of everything to a garbage soup). But not everyone reacts like this — not everyone, that is to say, is healthy. More specifically, two species of subhuman, the hipster (in my terminology, the "artfag") and the absurdly rich, react in a very different manner, a manner which is worth investigating. Briefly, then, the hipsters are ready to worship as art any object whatsoever, however ugly and worthless, provided it belongs neither to antique art (which they regard as outmoded) nor to popular art (which is, well, popular), whilst the rich make no such distinctions: they'll simply buy the most expensive artworks they can afford, meaning either antique ones or modern (i.e., once more excluding contemporary popular works which, due to their being produced in great numbers, never manage to reach the astronomical prices that are required to get the rich interested in them — prices which only the unique, unreproducible artworks can ever hope to achieve). So even though an illustration by someone like, say, a Brom or a Terada may require immeasurably more skill to create and be immensely more beautiful (in a word, more "artful") than some abstract painting abortion that's "worth" millions, the hipsters will stay away from it because it's popular and the rich because it's cheap. In short, so-called "modern art" is sustained exclusively by the interest of the hipsters and the absurdly rich, while no one else really gives a fuck about it. — And now comes the million-dollar question: What do these people get out of this absurd behavior? For they can't be going to all this trouble for nothing — there's got to be something in it for them. And what's in it for them is social status — they find in this so-called "modern art" a means for advancement in what I call "the slave game" — the game for social distinction. To take each case separately, the hipsters — being generally stupid, lazy, utterly talentless, with no skills whatsoever, usually even extremely ugly — need some sort of trick, some sort of cunning, subterranean stratagem in order to compete with the strong, the intelligent, the beautiful and the talented, and they find this in affecting an air of "higher intellectuality" — in attempting, that is to say, to appear as if they stood on a higher plane compared to everyone else at least in one respect: in the intellectual-artistic sphere — a sphere in which they have observed that uneducated people (i.e. those who lack a solid philosophical background) are extremely easy to dupe. The rich, on the other hand, have the exact opposite problem: they are already sitting at or very near the heights of social status, and are therefore in need of some way of surpassing their peers, of distinguishing themselves even further — some new set of rules, to put it in our language, which will allow them to continue playing the game between them. Their fundamental problem is that, since bank account balances cannot be exhibited, they lack a high-score board to compare their progress between them. Up to a certain point non-artistic acquisitions such as mansions, jets and private islands will do the job — but only up to a point, because the exchange-values (i.e. the price-tags) of all these things is intimately connected with their use-values, and hence are not free to skyrocket out of all proportion. What they therefore need is utterly repulsive, useless knick-knacks that no one could possibly want (i.e. with zero use-value, so that there's no chance of them ever becoming popular), and which they can therefore arbitrarily invest with whatever exchange-value they want as an excuse to throw entire fortunes at them — and to be seen doing so. — In both cases, then, art no longer serves to give pleasure in itself, but is instead used as a chip in the slaves' game of social distinction, as a means to an increase of social status — and it is this increase which provides the pleasure, and for the sake of which the artfags and the rich will stop at nothing to appear to be worshipping little preposterous, repulsive, useless knick-knacks. So we see that even in this case, the most extreme case of ugliness in art (for in the entire history of art nothing has ever been created even remotely as ugly as modern art — Baudrillard: "thus painting currently cultivates, if not ugliness exactly... then the uglier-than-ugly (the "bad", the "worse", "kitsch"), an ugliness raised to the second power") — even in this case the artworks (i.e. the knick-knacks) still manage to give pleasure, but indirectly — not through the effect they have on their owner, but due to their effect on everyone else — on everyone but the owner! A fact which explains why these "artworks" no longer need to be beautiful — quite the opposite in fact, they must necessarily be ugly, otherwise they'd end up becoming popular and would no longer be suitable to serve as the ultimate chips in the slave game. — What is most remarkable about this whole business, and can be discerned only now, once it has been properly analyzed, is how the artfags, who reside at the bottom of the slave game, and the absurdly rich, who stand at the top, end up turning to the same means in their struggle to raise themselves higher, and in a sense collaborate, with the artfags creating repulsive trinkets and the rich buying them up, thus meeting each other at the point of inversion — where the game comes full circle, and reveals itself for what it is.

 

Edited July 31, 2014 by miki.bg

[boshoku]

(kauboje, ovaj te prozvo: "Za "car je go" publiku poput Calligule, pretpostavljam da jesu i imaju isti/sličan stav." nabodi ga ((mojne glavom, ubićeš ga! :P ))

 

miki, ok - kasno je, mrzi me

[Caligula]

Jok more, mi smo istomisljenici, dakle Miki prozima stvar. Nisi pazljivo citao.

 

@Miki: mislim da je za citanje/necitanje linkovanog teksta presudno ovo  "dugačkoj i detaljnoj" .

 

Ako mene pitas, moze sve to i sazetije da se kaze, 

 

[Ariel]

Miki.bg, izuzetno mi je drago što si okačio Kjerkegora (aj šit ju not, taj tip icycalm što je pisao o umetnosti i video igrama se zove Aleks Kjerkegor) jer on na izuzetno zanimljiv način brani tezu o veštini kao presudnoj za definisanje umetnosti, koristeći Vitgenštajna, Ničea i Bodrijara da postavi video igre na pijedestal kao najuzvišeniju formu umetnosti koju je čovek do sada iznedrio (iako je esej obiman, a ima on još njih, sve sam ih čitao, pati od čeripikovanja tj. bira stvari koje mu odgovaraju za tezu, ali na kraju krajeva, koji filozof, pardon teoretičar, to pa ne radi) - naravno, u tome se oseća to nemačko klasično hegelijansko nasleđe potrebe za klasifikacijom umetnosti, ali opet, ako ćemo vitgenštajnovski, iz klasifikacije se može doći do presudne kategorije tj. do odgovora na to šta jeste, a šta nije umetnost, što je rekao bih, nekako pitanje na koje se ovaj topić stalno vraća. Ili bar Kauboj. :D

 

Inače, voleo bih da malo pričamo o video igrama kao autentičnom obliku savremene umetnosti - ko misli da one to nisu, spreman sam za polemiku, mada eno vam ga mnogo iscrpnije icycalm, pa vidite šta ima da kaže. U svakom slučaju, indikativno je da se i ovde u raspravi o savremenoj umetnosti sve uglavnom vrti oko konceptuale, koja jeste autentičan način na koji se umetnost "zanovila" modernom dobu, pa i u post-modernom dobu razuđenih narativa i nadmećućih vizija stvarnosti i čovekove uloge u njoj. Video igre, kao zaista sinkretičan oblik koji uvodi potpuno novi rakurs u pojam "uživanja" umetnosti, jer zahtevaju veštinu i od tvorca i od strane "uživaoca" da bi bile doživljene u potpunosti, se nekako ne pojavljuju u toj raspravi. Verovatno zbog toga što im je poenta nedvosmisleno da zabave i što su u tom aspektu nepopravljivo zauvek artefakti pop-kulture, što se doživljava kao druga vrednosna kategorija u odnosu na ostale oblike "ozbiljne" umetnosti, koja valjda ne sme da bude kreirana sa idejom da zabavi već samo da preispituje. Estetski faktor je očigledno tu sekundaran tj. nikako nije presudan za to da li je nešto umetnost. Tako da ta ozbiljnost uključuje, naravno, i konceptualnu umetnost.

Inače, Kauboje, pitao sam te za Benksija zato što je čovek (ili ljudi) napravio vrhunski dokumentarac, Exit Through the Gift Shop, koji dosta dobro može da ti da odgovor na pitanje šta je danas umetnost, jer kroz primer čoveka simulakruma, uz mnogo jaku priču, posredno pokazuje kako savremena ulična, angažovana ili čak konceptualna umetnost - jer šta je kamion klanice pun plišanih igračaka životinja koji  ide kroz grad, nego konceptuala - jeste umetnost. Nadao sam se da ga nisi pogledao. A ako jesi pa i dalje ne kapiraš neke stvari... Uh, hajde da pričamo o video igrama.

[Turnbull]

 

 

Oba bolda nonsens uz lepu retoriku.

 

Prvi bold - zar se istraživanja, analize i rasprave ne rade najbolje u formi koja je mnogo manje limitarujuća, pisanoj reči ili govoru? Da imaju šta smisleno da kažu tako bi i uradili. Tu se i otkriva ništavilo i pseudo-intelektualizam takvih dela. Šta tačno analiziraju "dela" poput Marininog i šta to imaju da kažu što ne može biti urađeno na pomenute načine? 

 

Drugi bold - opravdavanje nestajanje kriterijuma uz "velike" reči.

 

 

Ne znam kakvom jezičkom gimnastikom može da se opravda da konzerve i govna zaslužuju pažnju, a kamoli dostizanje absurdnih cena takvih "umetničkih dela".

 

 

Iskreno me zanima šta ljudi misle o dugačkoj i detaljnoj kritici koji sam linkovao ranije u temi, vidim da niko nije komentarisao. Ili su ovakve stvari opšte poznate? Za "car je go" publiku poput Calligule, pretpostavljam da jesu i imaju isti/sličan stav.

 

Izvod:

 

As each art deteriorates and degenerates due to the gradual abandonment of laboriously invented and refined conventions (which, contrary to popular belief, do not restrict an art but on the contrary create, refine, and help it flourish — the reason bunglers find conventions "restrictive" is because they lack the training and discipline required to adhere to them and the talent and creativity to add to (i.e. further complexify) and/or modify them), we find in every field the same movement: a regression to previous, in many cases even primitive critical standards. Moreover, at the same time as standards collapse the number of aspiring artists increases (indeed, as we have seen, it is this very increase that leads to the collapse, the two movements unfolding simultaneously once the masses have been "emancipated" and the means of artistic creation become widely available), whilst the resulting artworks come to increasingly resemble a repulsive junk- and rubbish-soup that no one in their right mind would want to have anything to do with. "In this sense, therefore," says Baudrillard, in his essay "Transaesthetics",

 

"inasmuch as we have access to neither the beautiful nor the ugly, and are incapable of judging, we are condemned to indifference."

 

But Baudrillard's love of hyperbole and his aversion to rigorously structured writing (for he thought quite rigorously — he just did not write that way) cause him to commit an error here — in fact two of them. Because our problem is not, as he says, that we "lack access" to the beautiful and the ugly (for the works of the masters obviously haven't gone anywhere: we still "have access" to them) — our problem is solely with the new stuff that's being made, all of which has at last become so abysmally ugly that no one can any longer be bothered to sit down with a microscope and try to figure out which repulsive aesthetic monstrosity is less repulsive than the others. Therefore, we are not "condemned to indifference" because we are "incapable" of judging — we are condemned to indifference because we can't be bothered to judge, because we quite simply do not want to.

 

This, however, should not be taken to mean that we no longer care about art — only about what passes for modern art. It goes without saying that we still care about classical art, whether that be the statues of antiquity, the frescoes of the Renaissance, the plays of the seventeenth century or the symphonies of the eighteenth. And, at the same time, we care about the popular art which contemporary "artists" and "critics" (i.e. pseudo-artists and pseudo-critics) see as beneath them: we care about photography, the cinema and comic books, as well as the works of modern illustrators (who are the true, if inferior, descendants of the painters...), and all genres of genuinely nuanced contemporary music. Some of us even care about stuff like resin statues of movie or comic book heroes, which — say of them what you will — are a great deal closer to the sculptures of antiquity than the randomly slapped-together garbage that desperately tries to pass itself off today as "plastic art". In short, any form of contemporary popular art, inasmuch as it gives pleasure to anyone, to anyone at all, stands on an immeasurably higher level than "modern art" — which gives pleasure to no one, not even, as we shall soon be seeing, to those who pretend to enjoy it.

 

This double movement, then, which consists partly in rediscovering antique art, and partly in embracing contemporary popular artforms, is how healthy people react to the phenomenon of "modern art" (i.e. to the complete and utter dissolution of artistic convention in every sphere and the reduction of everything to a garbage soup). But not everyone reacts like this — not everyone, that is to say, is healthy. More specifically, two species of subhuman, the hipster (in my terminology, the "artfag") and the absurdly rich, react in a very different manner, a manner which is worth investigating. Briefly, then, the hipsters are ready to worship as art any object whatsoever, however ugly and worthless, provided it belongs neither to antique art (which they regard as outmoded) nor to popular art (which is, well, popular), whilst the rich make no such distinctions: they'll simply buy the most expensive artworks they can afford, meaning either antique ones or modern (i.e., once more excluding contemporary popular works which, due to their being produced in great numbers, never manage to reach the astronomical prices that are required to get the rich interested in them — prices which only the unique, unreproducible artworks can ever hope to achieve). So even though an illustration by someone like, say, a Brom or a Terada may require immeasurably more skill to create and be immensely more beautiful (in a word, more "artful") than some abstract painting abortion that's "worth" millions, the hipsters will stay away from it because it's popular and the rich because it's cheap. In short, so-called "modern art" is sustained exclusively by the interest of the hipsters and the absurdly rich, while no one else really gives a fuck about it. — And now comes the million-dollar question: What do these people get out of this absurd behavior? For they can't be going to all this trouble for nothing — there's got to be something in it for them. And what's in it for them is social status — they find in this so-called "modern art" a means for advancement in what I call "the slave game" — the game for social distinction. To take each case separately, the hipsters — being generally stupid, lazy, utterly talentless, with no skills whatsoever, usually even extremely ugly — need some sort of trick, some sort of cunning, subterranean stratagem in order to compete with the strong, the intelligent, the beautiful and the talented, and they find this in affecting an air of "higher intellectuality" — in attempting, that is to say, to appear as if they stood on a higher plane compared to everyone else at least in one respect: in the intellectual-artistic sphere — a sphere in which they have observed that uneducated people (i.e. those who lack a solid philosophical background) are extremely easy to dupe. The rich, on the other hand, have the exact opposite problem: they are already sitting at or very near the heights of social status, and are therefore in need of some way of surpassing their peers, of distinguishing themselves even further — some new set of rules, to put it in our language, which will allow them to continue playing the game between them. Their fundamental problem is that, since bank account balances cannot be exhibited, they lack a high-score board to compare their progress between them. Up to a certain point non-artistic acquisitions such as mansions, jets and private islands will do the job — but only up to a point, because the exchange-values (i.e. the price-tags) of all these things is intimately connected with their use-values, and hence are not free to skyrocket out of all proportion. What they therefore need is utterly repulsive, useless knick-knacks that no one could possibly want (i.e. with zero use-value, so that there's no chance of them ever becoming popular), and which they can therefore arbitrarily invest with whatever exchange-value they want as an excuse to throw entire fortunes at them — and to be seen doing so. — In both cases, then, art no longer serves to give pleasure in itself, but is instead used as a chip in the slaves' game of social distinction, as a means to an increase of social status — and it is this increase which provides the pleasure, and for the sake of which the artfags and the rich will stop at nothing to appear to be worshipping little preposterous, repulsive, useless knick-knacks. So we see that even in this case, the most extreme case of ugliness in art (for in the entire history of art nothing has ever been created even remotely as ugly as modern art — Baudrillard: "thus painting currently cultivates, if not ugliness exactly... then the uglier-than-ugly (the "bad", the "worse", "kitsch"), an ugliness raised to the second power") — even in this case the artworks (i.e. the knick-knacks) still manage to give pleasure, but indirectly — not through the effect they have on their owner, but due to their effect on everyone else — on everyone but the owner! A fact which explains why these "artworks" no longer need to be beautiful — quite the opposite in fact, they must necessarily be ugly, otherwise they'd end up becoming popular and would no longer be suitable to serve as the ultimate chips in the slave game. — What is most remarkable about this whole business, and can be discerned only now, once it has been properly analyzed, is how the artfags, who reside at the bottom of the slave game, and the absurdly rich, who stand at the top, end up turning to the same means in their struggle to raise themselves higher, and in a sense collaborate, with the artfags creating repulsive trinkets and the rich buying them up, thus meeting each other at the point of inversion — where the game comes full circle, and reveals itself for what it is.

 

 

 

Izbacuješ half-baked parole i najotrcanije fraze kojih bi se i Antonić postideo ("pseudo-intelektualistička objašnjenja" - intelektualistička je već omalovažavajuće, pseudo je već čist overkill). Elem, pozivati se ne ni na Bordijara, nego na na nekog lika koji se poziva na Bodrijara, a protivnike ua rapsravi nazivati "pseudo-intelektualnim" je, kako da ti kažem

 

 

A kad smo već kod klasika postmoderne, evo da i ja izbacim svog favorita. Podsetio me ovaj tvoj biser:

 

zar se istraživanja, analize i rasprave ne rade najbolje u formi koja je mnogo manje limitarujuća, pisanoj reči ili govoru? Da imaju šta smisleno da kažu tako bi i uradili. Tu se i otkriva ništavilo i pseudo-intelektualizam takvih dela. Šta tačno analiziraju "dela" poput Marininog i šta to imaju da kažu što ne može biti urađeno na pomenute načine?

 

 

na jedan detalj iz Borhsove priče "Averoesova potraga"

 

"One evening, the Muslim merchants of Sin-i Kalal conducted me to a house of painted wood in which many persons lived. It is not possible to describe that house, which was more like a single room, with rows of cabinet-like contrivances, or balconies, one atop another. In these niches there were people eating and drinking; there were people sitting on the floor as well, and also on a raised terrace. The people on this terrace were playing the tambour and the lute -- all, that is, save some fifteen or twenty who wore crimson masks and prayed and sang and conversed among themselves. These masked ones suffered imprisonment, but no one could see the jail; they rode upon horses, but the horse was not to be seen; they waged battle, but the swords were of bamboo; they died, and then they walked again."

 

"The acts of madmen," said Faraj, "are beyond that which a sane man can envision."

 

"They were not madmen," abu-al-Hasan had to explain. "They were, a merchant told me, presenting a story."

 

No one understood, no one seemed to want to understand. Abu-al-Hasan, in some confusion, swerved from the tale he had been telling them into inept explanation ...

 

"Let us imagine that someone shows a story instead of telling it -- the story of the seven sleepers of Ephesus, say.  We see them retire into the cavern, we see them pray and sleep ... we see them awaken after three hundred years ... It was something like that that the persons on the terrace showed us that evening."

 

"Did these persons speak?" asked Faraj.

 

"Of course they did ... They spoke and sang and gave long boring speeches!"

 

"In that case," said Faraj, "there was no need for twenty persons. A single speaker could tell anything, no matter how complex it might be."

 

To that verdict, they all gave their nod. They extolled the virtues of Arabic -- the language used by Allah, they recalled, when He instructs the angels -- and then the poetry of the Arabs. After according that poetry its due praise, abu-al-Hasan dismissed those other poets who, writing in Cordoba or Damascus, clung to pastoral images and Bedouin vocabulary -- outmoded he called them ... It was time, he argued, that the old metaphors be renewed ... five hundred years of admiration had worn it very thin. To that verdict, which they had all heard many times before from many mouths, they all likewise gave their nod.

 

Edited July 31, 2014 by Turnbull

[Ariel]

Odlično, Turnbulle, to je to. Miki, nepotrebno zazivaš ograničenja, opet ta kategorizacija koja je pre svega vrednosna, kakve veze ima što se nešto može "bolje" reći esejem nego performansom, kada i jedno i drugo može obraditi temu, podstaći na preispitivanje, imati sasvim posebnu estetiku, na kraju krajeva i samim tim pružiti mogućnost za autentičan doživljaj? To zaista dolazi iz iste konstelacije kao Kaubojev nazovi-rezon da to što su neke domaćice sedele po šamanskim okupljanjima čini rad Abramovičeve na neki način nevalidnim. Što bi onda neko uzeo da, šta ja znam, slika Hrista na raspeću posle renesansnih majstora? Pa zato što misli da može nešto novo da kaže na tu temu, na neki svoj način, ne umem banalnije od ovoga da objasnim. E sad, da li ti nalaziš vrednost u tome, da li te dira, Stendalov efekat dal te obuzima ili se vataš za tuki, to je već kompleksna igra između svega što definiše tebe kao ličnosti i onoga što umetničko delo nudi. Da li ćete se preklopiti u nekim tačkama da dođe do rezonacije? Ko zna. Ne mora. Nekada je delo zaista šuplje, nekada si ti zaista šupalj.

[DarkAttraktor]

ne, svi su trebali da prekinu sa crtanjem hrista posle renesansnih majstora.

 

sake si da iz pijeteta odseku pri samoj primisli da nacrtaju ciku na krstu posle renesansnih majstora.

 

zato smo tu i de smo danas, jer nismo povukli crtu™.

[Ariel]

to je taj neki urušeni, čak izgubljeni sistem vrednosti™

 

edit: a uvek možemo da povučemo crtu, imam čoveka kekeke

Edited August 1, 2014 by Ariel

[boshoku]

Abramovičeve

kauboj je za tebe đerald levinson

 

de sam zašo...

[Ariel]

što, šta je problem? nemoj samo ono if you have to ask you'll never know

[Аврам Гојић]

Žena je Crnogorka, od AbramoviĆevih, ali Boškić je suviše cool da uz prozivku ponudi i ispravku.

[Ariel]

Aaa, dakle, nešto nebitno za temu, ali dovoljno da me izgleda diskvalifikuje iz diskusije, okej! Boškić, jel smem da te zovem bošokurac?

 

Edit: evo ti mene možeš čmAriel

Edited August 1, 2014 by Ariel

[расејан]

Ух, ал' сте се расписали... таман хоћу да се убацим негде, кад скрољнем ниже а оно чаршави нанизани ко за бекство са десетог спрата.

 

Елем, око видео игара. Деца су ми одрасла уз рачунаре од малих ногу, и пратили смо ту сцену од Спектрума наовамо. То је могла бити уметност, и има искорака ка уметности; штавише, неке игре где су објављене платформе да свако може да прави своје амбијенте онда постају и народна уметност - гледао сам мало Малу велику планету, која је феноменална на ту страну.

 

Једна од ћерки је, штавише, радила у тој бранши и баталила посао након шест година. Јер је тамо уметност у ствари забрањена, можда и горе него у Холивуду. Сваки искорак у креативност бива или срезан или, ако си мали студио, откупљен па иступљен до бесмисла разним наставцима. Неће више да прави чудовишта и имитације виђеног у другим играма.

 

Видео игра као медиј је одлична за стварање уметности. Као тржиште не.